How many are interested in a legal AMHA over sized division

[hairicane]

LaVerne, I love your post. And you have done a great job with your AMHA "castoffs"

U have lovely horses.

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

GAWD Lavern that was excellent! And unfortunately sadly true. There are too many short fuglies in AMHA and too many 'taller' ones that have gone on to be great AMHR B producers!

AMHA and the people that actively participate do not want an over division no matter how much it's needed whether breed stock or separate shows. It gets shot down year after year. I would support a breed stock over division more than a show division - not against the show division just thinking of how it would be handled and adding to the time of shows!

As for the AMHA standard - does it still say the smallest most . . . as that is contrary to what seems to be winning at the National level.

Matt Drown - I have an issue with what you posted!!!! You totally made way to much sense and crushed my dreams of Minis every being a breed - WAAAA! We will be stuck as a height registry as long as everything is height controlled. BTW I would love to have a herd of 38" Miniature Fresians - that would be so awesome! Sometimes people make too much sense - drat you Mr. Drown!!!!! LOL - this really was an ephiphany for me.

On a side note, in my opinion, you can eliminate hardshipping all you want, we will NEVER be a breed registry. Just listen to the name "Miniature" horse. The name itself implies size. We are not called "Miniature Arabians" or "Miniature Morgans" or anything else. Simply "Miniature Horse". We are a height registry, and will always be a height registry. Look at the way we separate show classes, COMPLETELY by height, sex, and color, but more by height than anything else. Morgan is a breed registry, and you don't see them showing in certain classes based on height, same with arab, friesian, whatever. Everything involved with the miniature horse is based on height, how could we possibly be anything more than a height registry? Besides that, there is nothing wrong with being a height registry. I have mixed feelings on eliminating hardshipping, but I don't think it has anything to do with being classified as height or breed. Yes it might make us more like other breed registries, in that they don't allow hardshipping, but we have so many other differences it is impossible to be a breed. When is the last time you saw an appy registered with the Jockey Club? How many palominos are registered with the Friesian registry? Besides that, with all this fuss about keeping AMHA 34" and under, do you research and tell me how many breeds you find with height restrictions...
 
We are and forever will be, a height registry.

 

[R3]

In my opinion, Miniature horses COULD become a 'breed', if they choose to do so. It has already been stated that American Shetlands are a 'breed', and they have height requirements for showing. There are many breeds of dogs, and they have height requirements for showing. If they are outside of their height requirements, they are still 'registered', they just can't show. Paint horses are a 'breed', but they have a separate 'breeding stock' category.

Pinto is a 'color' registry. There are several other 'color' registries. They don't care about pedigrees (other than to rule out non-acceptable colors or white patterns). But, as far as I know, they aren't too worried about DNA and parent qualification.

Right now, AMHA is ‘only’ a height registry. What I don't understand, and I haven't for a while now, is why does anyone care about DNA and parent qualification if ALL we are is a height breed? I see parent qualification as really more of a marketing tool for the sellers than anything of importance to the registry, if truly the only criteria for registration is height.

Why has AMHR already closed their registry? Why is AMHA planning to close theirs? What is the point, if all that matters is height? It seems to me that both registries want to be ‘more’ than just height registries.

IF, we ever make the choice to be considered a ‘breed’, then we might HAVE to accept some kind of ‘official’ recognition for all offspring from two registered parents. But, there are ‘breeds’ that have not bowed down to legal pressure. At least not yet, but maybe those registries are going to have to fall in line too.

Personally, I think there should be two divisions, once the registy is closed, and if the decide to become a 'breed'. AMHA, which would only be for the horses that meet the ‘Breed Standard’. The other, a ‘breeding stock’ (BS), (or whatever name it is given) division. The BS division would be ONLY for horses that were the result of two AMHA registered horses, but matured over 34". I would also only allow BS horses to be bred to AMHA horses in order for the resulting foals to be eligible for AMHA papers. If the foal stayed under 34”, it would get AMHA permanent papers. If a foal from a BS and AMHA horse went over 34” at maturity, it would not be eligible for acceptance in the BS division and would be considered (at least by AMHA) as ‘grade’.

As I stated in other threads, I don’t see that having a BS division in any way changes the Standard of Perfection, or the intent of the Association to promote horses who are under 34”.

I also don’t see any need for AMHA shows to have classes for BS horses, at least at this time. Maybe in the future, but I think that trying to add too much at once will only make the idea of having a BS division even harder to get passed.

 

[maestoso]

R3, I sort of get what you are saying, however we are a "miniature horse" and there is no such AKC registry as the "Miniature Dog" There might be certain breeds that have height restrictions but they are bred very specifically. They are bred for certain colors and purposes, weather it be for hunting or the toy division or whatever. It is not the same thing at all. Now if you were trying to start a "Miniature Arabian" registry, then I could see the comparison. Or a "Miniature Friesian" registry, but then you would be breeding for more specific characteristics then just size and good conformation.

 

[tagalong]

Some say the oversize horse will always crop up - well, in my opinion if people started being honest and didn't breed 34" and over miniature horses - this would eventually STOP happening.

Lisa, that would not happen for many, many more generations/years... the breed has not had a long enough history to have any guarantee of all horses not exceeding 34". You can breed 34" to 34" and get a 30". Or breed a 30" to a 29" and get a 36".

Rick - Are you saying you would buy a miniature horse over 34" and keep her AMHA Papers? See, that is what I feel is hurting our registry.

If that mare had excellent conformation and was producing lovely under 34" foals... she could be far more valuable to the registry than a coarse, 29" chunky monkey - IMO.

Not everyone checks their breeding stock's heights regularly - once they have gone permanant - measuring is often not done until a sale is in the offing... is that breaking the rules or cheating or being dishonest as you insist? No. Is there a rule that all broodmares must be meticulously rounded up and measured and notarized? No. A breeder may not even know that some have slipped over that 34" mark... or that 38" mark...

Someone else ( sorry, I can't remember who) said look at our colts selling for $200.00 to 500.00 - Maybe this would STOP if the rules were followed.

IMO that will only stop when overbreeding stops. Nothing to do with size... and everything to do with flooding the market.

If AMHA started an over division size - then why would people pay two registries? In my opinion - Some would go to all AMHR and some would go to all AMHA - because it would save us money - we would NO LONGER need to pay money to two different registries.

I'm confused - you do not need to pay two registries now. You can double register your horses - or not, as you wish. AMHA having a Breeding Stock registry would only include more horses that previously might only have been AMHR.

They could not show - but still be registered as breeding stock. Many other breed registries have similar set-ups - and I think it is something worth looking into, anyway.

I personally breed miniature horses only - So, I do not compare them to other registries such as AKC, Morgans, etc. I don't know their rules and at this time I only care about what is happening with the miniature horses.

Lisa... it never hurts to see what other, larger, older and more established registries have done and are doing... and see if that would work for us. What works for AQHA or APHA might or might not work for AMHA... but it is worth examining similar issues that other registries have had to deal with.

Just dismissing it out of hand might be a bit hasty... and hurt us in the long run. Especially in a breed where the dwarf gene runs through many lines.

I think we need to seriously look at this idea and discuss the possibilities...

 

[maestoso]

Lisa, this thread is actually addressing two different topics, and I think you are missing half of it, which may be why you feel like you must keep repeating yourself about it being "so simple".

On one side, it is about following and enforcing rules that are already in place. For that, I agree with you. Rules should be enforced, people should be honest.

But if you look at the title of the thread, it asks who would be interested in an over division, which is a completely different topic than following the rules and it is certainly NOT "so simple" as you keep saying. Change is needed for growth, that doesn't mean we have to change everything, it doesn't even mean we have to change the particular rule we are discussing in this thread, but, change is definitely necessary for growth. Rules are not meant to stay the same for ever and ever. So this is not about following the rules. It is about possibly working toward changing a rule to help better the breed or to satisfy the majority of the members. It isn't just about making the dishonest people happy. Because I follow the rules and I am honest, and I would support this rule change. So it is is about making plenty of honest people happy too. And my desire for this rule change has nothing to do with anyone dishonest, or an oversize mare in my back yard, because I don't have one. It is not nearly as simple as "just go to AMHR" . If the majority of the registry supports this change, it should be changed, end of story, regardless of what foundation AMHA started on, regardless of any rules that have been in place for any number of years. If the majority of the registry wanted to allow only hot pink horses into the registry, that is what should happen. Like anything else, AMHA is a service, and in any service related organization it IS about satisfying the customer, and we are all customers. Now I don't think we should satisfy just one or two, and leave the rest hanging, remember that I am saying majority. And honestly, I don't know if the majority would support this, but there are certainly many on this thread alone who would.

By the way, if rules were never changed, Woman wouldn't be voting, and African Americans would still be segregated. Things change with time, and based on what people want. That is not only normal, but it is healthy and absolutely necessary.

 

[Bailey@SmallWonders]

I am in aggreement with Lisa.

 

[shelia]

Some of you who are against and say that this is not what AMHA was founded on. You say we should not change the rules because it will cause the eventual demise of AMHA. You say larger and larger horses will start to be the norm and we will lose that miniature size forever.

When AMHA was formed they saw the need for oversized stock and hardshipping. Through the years they have done a fine job and gotten some great little horses. They have really improved on the miniature horse.

Now rules have been passed to change that. Those that want to keep oversized stock actually want what AMHA was originally founded on. They want to return the registry a little to what it was originally meant to be. They believe that maybe we were a bit hasty when we started closing those doors.

Those of you who do not want oversized stock are the ones who want change.

 

[faithfarm]

Lisa,

The end result is that we should all stride to produce the best quality 34" and under miniature horses, but we must account for the foundation genes that pop up ocassionally. The mare I mentioned is sired by a 28" stallion and a 32" mare, there is not much chance that she would throw any oversized offspring, unless you get wacky with the stallion choice. At this time, you can still hardship any horse that is under 34", so by keeping the AMHA papers on one that goes over and registering the offspring, you can skip a few steps. At least you can verify the pedigree and that is where consistency comes from. I am for honestly in the association and the only way to get that is by allowing those oversized horses to keep their papers and be registered as "Breeding Stock Oversized". If an oversized horse produced oversized offspring, you would stop breeding it, since the offspring wouldn't sell. If you actually knew the true heights of the horses in the background of your own horses, you might not would have bought them. And I would go so far to say that most people who can recognize a quality horse would love to have the mare that I used as an example in their breeding program. Maybe not you, but those who have a desire to produce the best quality horses and better the breed. Those oversized miniatures are being used by many of the best farms, and if you show, you are getting beat by their offspring. It's about time for a level playing field.

By the way, I have no interest in AMHR; so if one of mine goes over, it is a grade pony.

Sometimes rules are made to be broken, especially if the rule is not for the "greater good". We must move this association forward as a Breed Registry. I agree with Matt, if everyone just followed the rules, we would still be segragated and your opinion wouldn't matter.

Rick

 

[backwoodsnanny]

I have read with interest all threads regarding measuring and oversize and now this on creating an oversize division. I understand why AMHA would like an oversize division as it all is related to money and keeping a horses history. First of all its not like there arent already oversize horses registered with AMHA and breeding for AMHA offspring. While many AMHA members follow the rules and turn in papers on oversize horses there are also many who dont. This all has to do with integrity not only of the registry but the integrity of each AMHA member. You can enforce the oversized horses coming into the ring simply by enforcing the rules and being strict with measuring. You will never be able to enforce the breeding using oversize mares or stallions. Unless there is going to be a measuring group for every state and country who has AMHA registered horses you can never regulate this. Yes we want people to be honest and have integrity but that is not something that can be legislated. We know from all competitive sports there will always be cheaters and unless they are caught and hurt where it counts in the pocketbook it will not stop. So that said it really doesnt matter what you do . This is far more reaching than just the breed shed or the show ring. It has to do with the integrity of the members in general.

 

[crponies]

I really don't think adding an oversized division to AMHA would be the demise of the 34" and under horse. AMHR still has plenty of them running around and showing! There are plenty of people who love the small ones. Besides, most people who would like this division added would not want these larger horses to show AMHA. Why would people purposefully breed for something they could not show with their organization? Besides, as other people have said, the rules could state that an oversize must be bred to a 34" and under thus increasing your chances of a 34" or under foal. It would be interesting to know how many of all the AMHA members really would support this change. I wish some of those long time breeders like Tony would chime in here.

 

[bingo]

I guess I do not see what the big deal is either way. AMHA might as well make money off the larger horses but even if they choose not to have a over division lets face facts. Those horses are still being used and are still in our breeding pool.

You can argue it is not right, you can argue it is not honest but again facts are facts and it is happening on a daily basis all around the country. It has not been the demise of AMHA yet and it has not yet wiped out all of the under 30 inch horses. I do not see that if will become the demise of AMHA. I also do not see tons of AMHR B size die hard breeders rushing to register their horses AMHA. This will more then likely effect the 34.50 to 35.50 horses that again are already being used for breeding on a daily basis.

The issue becomes does AMHA choose to use this as a marketing tool or continue to pretend it is not happening at all.

 

[HGFarm]

I would be interested.... they used to have a Foundation Oversize section, but I dont know what happened to it or when they quit doing that. The horses were for BREEDING ONLY, not showing, and many went on to produce small horses that were AMHA. I know of a few horses that have FO in their background and did not produce huge foals.

I agree, you are not losing bloodlines and quality horses this way. Just like the Appies and POAs only allowed colored horses to show, but they had a breeding section for the rest. They didnt want to reduce the gene pool either, and if folks are still interested in showing, they are still going to breed for something that will fall under those restrictions.

I dont think there are a HUGE number of them out there, percentage wise... My neighbor had gotten stats years ago at a National meeting that showed how many horses were in what size range and the percentage and there were not that many over 34 or that many under 30", compared to the rest.

 

[RockRiverTiff]

I would like to clarify my stand on this one more time, and then I'm done (cross my heart). As I have stated several times now, if this were a step toward becoming a breed the point would be moot, and like it or not I would accept an oversize breeding designation as an inevitability (and a legal necessity). As the registry stands, there are only two things that your horse out of two AMHA parents can be denied papers for: dwarfism (as determined by the office staff) and height (as reported by the horse's owner). This is because--yet again--we are a height registry. I am not being thick-headed here, I have read the posts for this proposal (as well as Robin's a few years ago), and I understand the points being made. Here are my concerns, if anyone would like to address them specifically:

First, in regards to my previous statement about ensuring quality, I am well aware that there is plenty of poor quality in the current gene pool. My point was that the horses we are proposing giving a breeding designation to--as the product of two AMHA parents--are from the same gene pool. Just like their smaller counterparts, I am sure there will be some phenomenal examples and then some sub-par ones too. If there is not a quality-based qualifier for these animals, then we are not adding quality to the gene pool by keeping them in it--the only thing we can be guaranteed of is that each of these horses is already over the height standard.

Second, having already established that the quality of these animals would be variable, I'd like to address the implications of an oversized breeding division as a whole as it relates to the market. Someone has already mentioned that some people might consider the value of these horses lower as breeding stock because of their potential to produce horses still outside the height standard. In addition to that, as breeding stock these animals--no matter how nice--would be ineligible to show in AMHA. Not only are they not halter-eligible, but they will never be able to drive competitively (one of the few skills that still ensures a good price on the current market), or even be able to go into a showmanship class with a child. The obvious implication of a "breeding stock" designation is that we should breed them. Tell me again why we need more breeding horses?

Third, I suspect nearly all bloodlines that would be "preserved" through this measure are already well-represented within our studbook. If you can find me an over-sized stallion or mare out of two AMHA parents that has been significantly influential in improving the quality of AMHR horses but that does NOT still have siblings making their own impact within AMHA, and at the same time consistently produces foals under 34", then that to me would be the biggest selling point for this proposal. (Sorry--necessary to bring AMHR in briefly for this example.)

As for the original Foundation Oversize measure, if I'm not mistaken it was an effort to properly record the heights of our early breeding stock. My family turned in the papers on one of our first horses--a beautiful Flying W mare--just before they passed this rule. Did we try to get her papers back when they did the Foundation Oversize division? You bet! But that was back when miniatures as a whole were rare and a good horse was even rarer.

 

[McBunz]

Some of you who are against and say that this is not what AMHA was founded on. You say we should not change the rules because it will cause the eventual demise of AMHA. You say larger and larger horses will start to be the norm and we will lose that miniature size forever.When AMHA was formed they saw the need for oversized stock and hardshipping. Through the years they have done a fine job and gotten some great little horses. They have really improved on the miniature horse.

Now rules have been passed to change that. Those that want to keep oversized stock actually want what AMHA was originally founded on. They want to return the registry a little to what it was originally meant to be. They believe that maybe we were a bit hasty when we started closing those doors.

Those of you who do not want oversized stock are the ones who want change.

The change that I was looking for was to have the reasons people cheat addressed without going on a witch hunt... If the over sized had their own division completely, there would be

no reason to cheat.. This measuring thing has been going on for a very long time and has to be fixed in some way. hopefully without loosing membership..

 

[minimomNC]

Please explain how having an oversize breeding stock division in AMHA will stop the cheating in the show ring? And if the oversize horses can be shown, whats to stop the cheating still, people still getting those 36" horses measured in at 34" or getting those 40" ponies measured in at 38". Raising the height will not stop cheating. Only following the measuring rules will stop that.

And still no one has answered my question about geldings, if you make an oversize division for breeding stock only, what are you going to do with the oversize geldings? Leave them stallions and breed more oversize foals?

 

[shelia]

Tiffany, you have brought up a very good point. I may just have to rethink everything again. I still am not sure that all of the blood lines are well represented in AMHA. Miniature horses have been around for 400 years. It has only been within the last 40 years that people started to try to improve conformation and quality. It seems progress has been made by leaps and bounds. Are the miniatures so perfect now that they should be eliminated by height alone? Is it better to have a poorly conformed 28 inch miniature with crooked teeth in our registry than an excellent specimen that is an inch too tall? I know the goal is to breed the smallest most correct horse, but couldn't that taller one be bred down in a few generations to produce an excellent 28 inch mini? Is the poorly conformed 28 inch horse likely to produce what we want.

Don't get me wrong. There are some beautiful 28 and under horses in AMHA. I would love to see more of them!

I feel that closing the hard shipping is just as great a mistake as pushing out oversize horses.

 

[McBunz]

I guess we will see if an effort to correct the measuring problem is addressed at the nationals.. If cheating is still allowed other answers to the problem must be found..

My point being if we can not fix the problem by having honest measuring done, then allowing them that insist on trying to show horses over 34" to have an over 34" division

might be the answer.. Then it is up to the individual to decide if they want to buy horses produced from these over sized horses or not.

 

[shelia]

Some of you who are against and say that this is not what AMHA was founded on. You say we should not change the rules because it will cause the eventual demise of AMHA. You say larger and larger horses will start to be the norm and we will lose that miniature size forever.When AMHA was formed they saw the need for oversized stock and hardshipping. Through the years they have done a fine job and gotten some great little horses. They have really improved on the miniature horse.

Now rules have been passed to change that. Those that want to keep oversized stock actually want what AMHA was originally founded on. They want to return the registry a little to what it was originally meant to be. They believe that maybe we were a bit hasty when we started closing those doors.

Those of you who do not want oversized stock are the ones who want change.

The change that I was looking for was to have the reasons people cheat addressed without going on a witch hunt... If the over sized had their own division completely, there would be

no reason to cheat.. This measuring thing has been going on for a very long time and has to be fixed in some way. hopefully without loosing membership..

I am sorry if I misunderstood your post. I don't think the oversize division would stop the cheating, but it might cut it down a little. I guess I have my own reasons for wanting to retain the oversized minis.

I have reread my post and to me it still doesn't sound like a witch hunt, but maybe it does to others. If so I am very sorry. It was not meant that way at all.

 

[tagalong]

Ooops - I hit the Post button before I was ready to so! All fixed now....

I am not talking conformation I am talking size.

Lisa - IMO they go hand in hand. The conformation on a shorter 28" horse is NOT going to be the same as a 36" horse. Height can and does affect conformation.

Sheila - You said - Those of you who do not want over sized stock are the ones who want change- NOT ME - I want the " current" rules to be ENFORCED!

I guess I am a bit unsure as to how this could be strictly enforced - is a delegation going to go around dragging horses out of back pastures and measuring them? Would we institute a rule that demands that all horses be measured yearly? In front of assorted witnesses who will travel around the country at members' expense? I think it gets to be rather problematical.

Rick - You gave me the size of the sire and dam - I bet somewhere in this mares background there is a larger horse.

Maybe, maybe not. And maybe there is a 38" one in her future - or a 28" one. Maybe - like AQHA - AMHA X AMHA = AMHA... with an O/S breeding stock registry available to horses that meet the specifications.

I just still can't post more than one quote at a time.

If you can bold all though a post - use the same priniciples to quote.

Just hit reply - same as always... all the posts show up at the bottom of the screen. If the thread is long - you may need to open another window or tab and get on the thread there as well to have the posts you need at hand. HIGHLIGHT the section you want from a particular post... copy it (Ctrl + C).... then paste it (Ctrl + V) into the text box for your post. Then highlight it again - the same as you do to bold something - and click on the quote balloon button second from the right above the text box.

As far as Women and African Americans - I think we are WAY OFF TOPIC! That is my opinion anyway!

Not off topic at all IMO - it was just an example of how rules can be changed for the better.

Matt - that was a very well-written post IMO.

I agree, you are not losing bloodlines and quality horses this way. Just like the Appies and POAs only allowed colored horses to show, but they had a breeding section for the rest. They didnt want to reduce the gene pool either, and if folks are still interested in showing, they are still going to breed for something that will fall under those restrictions.

I agree, HGFarm - and the more I think about, the better it sounds. Something that AMHA should definitely look into, anyway...